Well, I have seen both, but I am far from competent to make a judgment there.

I think I read somewhere that Gredt´s work is pretty much in the direct tradition of baroque scholasticism and basically a new rendering of John of St. Thomas, while Hugon´s approach is a little bit more modern. Also, I think the latter is somewhat more prominent and has more credentials.

Thats what I heard. And in the end of the day, I would always go with the Dominican

Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:43 am

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Gredt or Hugon?

Julian wrote:

Well, I have seen both, but I am far from competent to make a judgment there.

I think I read somewhere that Gredt´s work is pretty much in the direct tradition of baroque scholasticism and basically a new rendering of John of St. Thomas, while Hugon´s approach is a little bit more modern. Also, I think the latter is somewhat more prominent and has more credentials.

Thats what I heard. And in the end of the day, I would always go with the Dominican

As a physicist, I was most interested in the second treatise of his Cosmology volume, titled "On the World as far as its Material and Formal Causes." In it he cites quite frequently the French physicist Pierre Duhem's Mixture and Chemical Combination and The Evolution of Mechanics in his discussion on the hylemorphic theory of matter, which avoids the pitfalls of both atomism and dynamism. Hugon's clear proofs of every principle that he expresses syllogistically--and the objections to which he distinguishes, concedes, denies, contradistinguishes, etc., in very solid scholastic form--and his desire to show the congruity of scholastic philosophy and modern physics is very impressive. Here is an example:

"X. - Difficulties Resolved; Whether there is a Contradiction Between the Scholastics and the Scientists. [...] 3rd Objection. Apart from the Scholastics who are ignorant of natural things, no one else professes hylemorphism. Therefore, it is prudent to mistrust this system. Reply. In this question we must believe the philosophers more so than the physicists and the chemists, as is evident from the previous reply. Further, the greatest philosophers, Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas, adhered to this system. Even today many outside of of the Scholastics support it. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire presents this testimony of the Aristotelian doctrine: 'For me, I find it to be simple and true, and it does not have the fault of being obscure; at most, I will grant that it has a certain subtlety, without being in any way sophistical. Matter and form are the logical and real elements of being.' (Préface de la Physique, p. 28.)."

One can only imagine what Hugon would have written had this book been published after the rise of quantum mechanics. It would only further confirm what Hugon cited of Duhem:

"Meanwhile, let it be clear that scientists that are true to their name do not contradict hylemorphism: 'Current physics tends to recover a certain form of peripateticism' [i.e., Aristotelianism]. (P. Duhem, Le mixte)."

Hugon cites modern spectral analysis to support that the

"Explanation of many things that are necessary for the complete understanding hylemorphism [...] III. - On the Permanence of Elements in the Mixture. [...] 3rd Objection. From spectral analysis it has been established that that in the composite there appear the colors of the simple elements. But this fact shows that the powers of elements remain in act in the composite. Therefore. Reply. I distinguish the major. That the colors of the elements appear in the composite while the composite remains at rest in the compound state, I deny; that these colors appear while the mixed body begins to be resolved through the action of light or heat, I concede. I contradistinguish the minor: that this fact shows that there are powers in act in the mixed body, if this happens in the compound state itself, I concede; but that this shows there are powers in act in the mixed body if this happens only when the mixed body begins to be resolved and destroyed, I deny. And I deny the conclusion. That only implies that the powers persist in similar entities."

Following this, Hugon cites Duhem:

Most recently, P. Duhem has said, 'For Aristotle, all philosophical research was based on a very minute logical analysis of the concepts that perception has made to germinate in our understanding. Each notion is appropriately stripped down to the exact contribution of experience, that which essentially constitutes the notion, and the parasitic ornaments with which fantasy dresses it up are strictly rejected. What has this to do, for example, with philosophising on mixts? It will require, above all, an exact analysis bringing out the distinction between elements, which cease to exist at the moment when the mixt is created, and the homogeneous mixt whose smallest part contains the elements potentially and can regenerate them by the appropriate corruption. In the view of the atomists, these necessary and sufficient conditions for the constitution of the notion of a mixt are substituted by hypotheses about the persistence and juxtaposition of atoms. These hypotheses, whose objects are not in any way perceptible by our legitimate means of knowing, should be relentlessly banished to the realm of pipe dreams.'Contemporary physics, too, puts an exact logical analysis of the notions furnished by experience at the foundations of all theory. It endeavours by such analysis not only to mark with precision the essential elements that compose each of these notions but also to meticulously eliminate all parasitic elements that mechanical hypotheses have gradually introduced.' (P. Duhem, Le mixte)."

Praising Duhem, Hugon says:

"IV. - The Scholastic System is Substantially Retained Today [...] It is also appropriate to write the following testimony of the most learned P. Duhem: 'Little by little, however, by the very effect of this development, mechanical hypotheses came up against obstacles on all sides which were more and more numerous and difficult to surmount. The atomic, Cartesian, and Newtonian systems gradually lost favour with physicists and made way for methods analogous to those advocated by Aristotle. Present-day physics is tending to return to a peripatetic form.' (P. Duhem, Le mixte)."

Hugon was Garrigou-Lagrange's colleague at the Angelicum for 20 years (source)!

Garrigou-Lagrange wrote:

Students, philosophers and theologians will for a long time have recourse to the Latin and French works of Hugon strongly approved by three Popes [St. Pius X, Benedict XV, and Pius XI]...and they will frequently consult his works considering him the theologus communis, the faithful eco of the Doctor Communis Ecclesiae

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum